Edward the Black Prince becomes king

It was male semi-salic primogeniture. Philippa was the daughter of the second son, whilst John of Gaunt and his Lancastrians are the fourth son, so an adult Holland married to Philippa, or the adult son of Philippa, would have suceeded peacefully.

There is no guarantee it would be peaceful IMHO. If the Lancastrians were not supporters of the Holland/Clarence line it seems plausible they would oppose their succession. Obviously if Edward IV rules well and unites his nobility his wishes would be accepted but even then the House of Lancaster may be seen as the alternative (much like Mortimer/York was to Lancaster during the reigns of Henry's IV, V and VI) and could cause trouble down the line.
 
Marriage to Phillipa wouldn't be enough, as stateless aid it was male primogeniture with a dash of might makes right and either way the Lancastrians are ahead.

Velasco's right, if one of the Hollands married Philippa of Clarence, adding to the incestuousness of the Plantagenets and their various cadet branches, then they would be able to challenge for the throne on behalf of their wife and potential heirs. The rules governing succession hadn't really been defined at the time, because during the Plantagenet era there had been such a profusion of sons it was unnecessary to state whether the throne followed agnatic primogeniture (complete exclusion of females), agnatic-cognatic primogeniture (exclusion of females in the presence of male agnates), or male-preference cognatic primogeniture (females may succeed if they do not have any living brothers, or brothers with children). Given that the Plantagenets had ended up on the throne owing to Matilda's succession, there would have been a claim to press that Philippa of Hainault was the senior claimant. It is also true, however, that a 'War of the Roses' of some sort is near inevitable, as there are too many male claimants with too much strength, namely the cadet branches of the Plantagenets, the Houses of Lancaster and York (and potentially a House of Gloucester), so the real question is whether the Hollands could be in a position of sufficient strength to challenge these families for the throne, on Philippa of Clarence's behalf. John Holland was a decent military commander, though let down by a bad temper. I think, however, the Lancastrians would make short shrift of these Holland upstarts, and then be able to get down to the proper business of the War of the Roses (perhaps a three-way War of the Roses, with a surviving Duke of Gloucester).
 
I think, however, the Lancastrians would make short shrift of these Holland upstarts, and then be able to get down to the proper business of the War of the Roses (perhaps a three-way War of the Roses, with a surviving Duke of Gloucester).

Without the marriage into the Clarence line the Yorkists don't really have a claim (same with Gloucester) so I think once the Hollands are defeated the Lancastrians may have a relatively peaceful time of it. Do you think the other two would be able to gather support to fight against the Lancastrians if they had both might and right on their side?

Unless of course John of Gaunt and OTL's Henry IV both die leaving a Beaufort as leading Lancastrian claimant against the Yorkists?
 
With a surviving Edward IV, the power of the House of Lancaster is significantly lessened. John of Gaunt would not be granted Aquitaine as a palatinate, nor would he be likely to receive his king-like palatine rights in Lancaster either. It's not inconceivable that the marriages of both Thomas Gloucester and Henry Lancaster to the de Bohun sisters might be blocked too, further "impoverishing" them.

Philippa of Clarence's grandson was Richard's heir-presumptive (or heir-designate?), so her seniority was definitely recognised and acknowledged by all - what allowed Lancaster to side-line Mortimer was his age (he was only 7) and a trumped up claim through his mother (!!!) whose ancestor he claimed had been the secret elder son of the King.
 
Philippa of Clarence's grandson was Richard's heir-presumptive (or heir-designate?), so her seniority was definitely recognised and acknowledged by all - what allowed Lancaster to side-line Mortimer was his age (he was only 7) and a trumped up claim through his mother (!!!) whose ancestor he claimed had been the secret elder son of the King.

Mortimer may have been used by Richard to prevent a Lancastrian succession, but according to one book ive recently read he was hoping his cousin Edward of York would succeed him, so I would say it is questionable that all acknowledged that the Mortimer's were rightful heirs (although I agree they were). Points well made on the weakened state of Lancaster in this scenario tho. :)
 
Mortimer may have been used by Richard to prevent a Lancastrian succession, but according to one book ive recently read he was hoping his cousin Edward of York would succeed him, so I would say it is questionable that all acknowledged that the Mortimer's were rightful heirs (although I agree they were). Points well made on the weakened state of Lancaster in this scenario tho. :)

I think Edward of York was simply inviable as an heir, being far too junior a prince to really be taken seriously. He would face opposition both from the Mortimers and Lancastrians and completely weaken the legitimacy of the monarchy. Both Mortimers and Lancastrians based their title to the throne on genealogical seniority by semi-salic primogeniture; what would Edward base his title on, being the fifth son?

Did the book say anything about how/why Edward would make his titlte to the crown?

:)
 
Without the marriage into the Clarence line the Yorkists don't really have a claim (same with Gloucester) so I think once the Hollands are defeated the Lancastrians may have a relatively peaceful time of it. Do you think the other two would be able to gather support to fight against the Lancastrians if they had both might and right on their side?

Perhaps not at first, but given that there are so many strong males with claims to the throne (that the claims are tenuous isn't overly important - King Henry VII's claim to the throne was only strengthened through a lot of deaths of males in front of him, largely due to being killed in battles, and him marrying the woman who had a stronger claim than him), there only needs to be one weak or young or female heir for them too start jockeying for position again and bumping each other off, right and centre.

With a surviving Edward IV, the power of the House of Lancaster is significantly lessened. John of Gaunt would not be granted Aquitaine as a palatinate, nor would he be likely to receive his king-like palatine rights in Lancaster either. It's not inconceivable that the marriages of both Thomas Gloucester and Henry Lancaster to the de Bohun sisters might be blocked too, further "impoverishing" them.

Very good point about the potential power of the Lancasters in a timeline where Edward survives to become king. I don't see why John of Gaunt wouldn't receive Lancaster though, he was granted the Duchy of Lancaster from his father in 1362, and even before then he was one of England's most powerful and richest men, with an annual income worth millions in today's money, so I don't think he would be too impoverished, even if the marriage to Mary de Bohun didn't come about.

EDIT: There's an interesting idea, perhaps the Duke of Gloucester could get married to Eleanor de Bohun, but John of Gaunt doesn't successfully abduct Mary de Bohun, so the Duke of Gloucester would be in a stronger position as the sole inheritor of the Bohun inheritance vis a vis the Lancastrians.
 
Last edited:
I think Edward of York was simply inviable as an heir, being far too junior a prince to really be taken seriously. He would face opposition both from the Mortimers and Lancastrians and completely weaken the legitimacy of the monarchy. Both Mortimers and Lancastrians based their title to the throne on genealogical seniority by semi-salic primogeniture; what would Edward base his title on, being the fifth son?

I totally agree his claim is flawed but it just shows that the will of a King doesnt guarantee who will succeed him. All I was trying to say is that a Holland/Clarence monarchy would at some point be confronted with a Lancastrian-rebellion or at least a pro-Lancastrian plot.
 
Perhaps not at first, but given that there are so many strong males with claims to the throne (that the claims are tenuous isn't overly important - King Henry VII's claim to the throne was only strengthened through a lot of deaths of males in front of him, largely due to being killed in battles, and him marrying the woman who had a stronger claim than him), there only needs to be one weak or young or female heir for them too start jockeying for position again and bumping each other off, right and centre.

Very good point about the potential power of the Lancasters in a timeline where Edward survives to become king. I don't see why John of Gaunt wouldn't receive Lancaster though, he was granted the Duchy of Lancaster from his father in 1362, and even before then he was one of England's most powerful and richest men, with an annual income worth millions in today's money, so I don't think he would be too impoverished, even if the marriage to Mary de Bohun didn't come about.

EDIT: There's an interesting idea, perhaps the Duke of Gloucester could get married to Eleanor de Bohun, but John of Gaunt doesn't successfully abduct Mary de Bohun, so the Duke of Gloucester would be in a stronger position as the sole inheritor of the Bohun inheritance vis a vis the Lancastrians.

If my memory serves me correctly, he received Lancaster as his duchy (like his other brothers received duchies) but he alone, later on, was given palatinate rights over Lancaster (which remain to this day) and Aquitaine (quite briefly I believe).

I think a War of the Roses could be avoided IF Edward IV lived a decade or so more, allowing a more adult Richard to come to the throne, and subsequently allowing for Richard to be succeeded by Phillippa's adult son or grandson, who he has groomed for the succession and is in position to establish his power if challenged by junior princes. Maybe even by marrying him to one of John Of Gaunt's daughters.
 
If my memory serves me correctly, he received Lancaster as his duchy (like his other brothers received duchies) but he alone, later on, was given palatinate rights over Lancaster (which remain to this day) and Aquitaine (quite briefly I believe).

Aquitaine I know he received from his brother, when Edward had to return to England to sort out his affairs before he passed away, so he's not likely to get Aquitaine here. He requested his father give him palatine rights, which he did in February 1377, so I think that probably still happens.

I think a War of the Roses could be avoided IF Edward IV lived a decade or so more, allowing a more adult Richard to come to the throne, and subsequently allowing for Richard to be succeeded by Phillippa's adult son or grandson, who he has groomed for the succession and is in position to establish his power if challenged by junior princes. Maybe even by marrying him to one of John Of Gaunt's daughters.

Maybe. But the decade of rule by Edward IV is not likely to be positive, if his rule of Aquitaine is anything to go by, and he could end up bankrupting the country and going off to fight wars leaving his brothers in charge. And would Edward IV surviving longer make Richard II a better king (I am honestly unsure), and how does he behave towards his uncles and other family members?
 
Ah - ok. So I guess John doesn't get Aquitaine, and his palatine rights in Lancaster are not extended to his heirs (as per OTL)? Butterflies would take care of the Bohun marriage, leaving Henry of Lancaster as a powerful magnate, but not obnoxiously so.

I think the Black Prince reigning a decade or so would allow Richard to grow, mature, gain experience of warfare and government, before having to cope with the burden of the Crown upon his young shoulders. As for the other family members, I think a lot might depend on how his father relates to them. It's one thing to be the eldest Prince; it's another to be King. I wonder if Edward IV would not try to curb his brothers' powers and rights, dictate who their children marry, etc.
 
Edward the Black Prince

I don't think that he would have made a very effective king. He really could continue the war with France. Things had been going badly there, and I don't think that Parliament would continue to finance it.
 
Top